I was having a similar discussion with my Father last night - tech is advancing at an incredible rate still, but scalability for most seems to largely hinge on the availability of large quantities of cheap energy. Fusion is really the only answer to that equation, and we are a long way off that yet. I worry about the world my kids will inherit
Me too. And around election time in particular I get very despondent at the level of discourse. We just don’t seem able to grasp the truly huge challenges and make meaningful responses to them our top priority.
Why would we consider anything long term when an election cycle is only 3 years? Surely the most important thing is the politicians getting elected? /S
Our current systems really do a crap job of encouraging long term thinking. It frustrates me that even good policies (like free dental care for young people) get delayed just so there are more talking points done election time.
Agreed. Tech can’t solve all our problems. We need to accept the fact that we’re just going to have less stuff and less convenience.
Lab grown milk protein is more efficient in terms of land, water and energy use and is only a few years away from being competitive in price. It’ll be in protein bars/shakes first, then cheese and eventually milk.
We don’t need fusion for high-tech food production to have a massive impact.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The program aims to grow fruit tissue without the parts that are usually discarded like the core of the apple or the rind of an orange.
Since lab-grown food is a completely new concept, once it is developed, it will then have to prove its safety to regulatory bodies likely through expensive and long clinical trials.
The Plant & Food Research program, which started 18 months ago, focuses on cells from blueberries, apples, cherries, feijoas, peaches, nectarines and grapes, but they warn that the end goal of harvesting something that is nutritional and enjoyable to eat is some years away and might not be attainable at all.
However, it’s unclear how the carbon footprint of such lab-grown fruit would compare to those grown using traditional methods, which may have to be transported long distances if imported.
Earlier this year, Cyclone Gabrielle, decimated parts of Hawkes Bay, an area known as New Zealand’s fruit bowl.
“I’m not sure we realise that we are going to need to produce more food for a bigger population but with less areas to grow and under increasing pressure from a non-conducive climate,” said Baldwin.
The original article contains 516 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
An apple with no core. Holy shit I didn’t realize how much I needed that in my life.
Can you please lab grow a banana without the strings
Is there any reason it has to be in a lab? There’s probably a higher chance of succeeding if they keep the tree and genetically modify the apple to have no core without needing to grow it in a lab.
I guess the idea of this research is to reduce the land needed to grow the same amount of consumable food.
